Nội dung Text: A Concise Introduction to Data Compression- P2

60 1. Approaches to Compression
4. The matrix of Equation (5.1) is a rotation matrix in two dimensions. Use books
on geometric transformations to understand rotations in higher dimensions.
5. Prepare an example of vector quantization similar to that of Figure 1.19.
The best angle from which to approach any problem is the try-angle.
—Unknown
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2
Huﬀman Coding
Huﬀman coding is a popular method for compressing data with variable-length codes.
Given a set of data symbols (an alphabet) and their frequencies of occurrence (or, equiv-
alently, their probabilities), the method constructs a set of variable-length codewords
with the shortest average length and assigns them to the symbols. Huﬀman coding
serves as the basis for several applications implemented on popular platforms. Some
programs use just the Huﬀman method, while others use it as one step in a multistep
compression process. The Huﬀman method [Huﬀman 52] is somewhat similar to the
Shannon–Fano method, proposed independently by Claude Shannon and Robert Fano
in the late 1940s ([Shannon 48] and [Fano 49]). It generally produces better codes, and
like the Shannon–Fano method, it produces the best variable-length codes when the
probabilities of the symbols are negative powers of 2. The main diﬀerence between the
two methods is that Shannon–Fano constructs its codes from top to bottom (and the
bits of each codeword are constructed from left to right), while Huﬀman constructs a
code tree from the bottom up (and the bits of each codeword are constructed from right
to left).
Since its inception in 1952 by D. Huﬀman, the method has been the subject of
intensive research in data compression. The long discussion in [Gilbert and Moore 59]
proves that the Huﬀman code is a minimum-length code in the sense that no other
encoding has a shorter average length. A much shorter proof of the same fact was
discovered by Huﬀman himself [Motil 07]. An algebraic approach to constructing the
Huﬀman code is introduced in [Karp 61]. In [Gallager 78], Robert Gallager shows that
the redundancy of Huﬀman coding is at most p1 + 0.086 where p1 is the probability of
the most-common symbol in the alphabet. The redundancy is the diﬀerence between
the average Huﬀman codeword length and the entropy. Given a large alphabet, such
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

62 2. Huﬀman Coding
as the set of letters, digits and punctuation marks used by a natural language, the
largest symbol probability is typically around 15–20%, bringing the value of the quantity
p1 + 0.086 to around 0.1. This means that Huﬀman codes are at most 0.1 bit longer
(per symbol) than an ideal entropy encoder, such as arithmetic coding (Chapter 4).
This chapter describes the details of Huﬀman encoding and decoding and covers
related topics such as the height of a Huﬀman code tree, canonical Huﬀman codes, and
an adaptive Huﬀman algorithm. Following this, Section 2.4 illustrates an important
application of the Huﬀman method to facsimile compression.
David Huﬀman (1925–1999)
Being originally from Ohio, it is no wonder that Huﬀman went to Ohio State Uni-
versity for his BS (in electrical engineering). What is unusual was
his age (18) when he earned it in 1944. After serving in the United
States Navy, he went back to Ohio State for an MS degree (1949)
and then to MIT, for a PhD (1953, electrical engineering).
That same year, Huﬀman joined the faculty at MIT. In 1967,
he made his only career move when he went to the University of
California, Santa Cruz as the founding faculty member of the Com-
puter Science Department. During his long tenure at UCSC, Huﬀ-
man played a major role in the development of the department (he
served as chair from 1970 to 1973) and he is known for his motto
“my products are my students.” Even after his retirement, in 1994, he remained active
in the department, teaching information theory and signal analysis courses.
Huﬀman developed his celebrated algorithm as a term paper that he wrote in lieu
of taking a ﬁnal examination in an information theory class he took at MIT in 1951.
The professor, Robert Fano, proposed the problem of constructing the shortest variable-
length code for a set of symbols with known probabilities of occurrence.
It should be noted that in the late 1940s, Fano himself (and independently, also
Claude Shannon) had developed a similar, but suboptimal, algorithm known today as
the Shannon–Fano method ([Shannon 48] and [Fano 49]). The diﬀerence between the
two algorithms is that the Shannon–Fano code tree is built from the top down, while
the Huﬀman code tree is constructed from the bottom up.
Huﬀman made signiﬁcant contributions in several areas, mostly information theory
and coding, signal designs for radar and communications, and design procedures for
asynchronous logical circuits. Of special interest is the well-known Huﬀman algorithm
for constructing a set of optimal preﬁx codes for data with known frequencies of occur-
rence. At a certain point he became interested in the mathematical properties of “zero
curvature” surfaces, and developed this interest into techniques for folding paper into
unusual sculptured shapes (the so-called computational origami).
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.1 Huﬀman Encoding 63
2.1 Huﬀman Encoding
The Huﬀman encoding algorithm starts by constructing a list of all the alphabet symbols
in descending order of their probabilities. It then constructs, from the bottom up, a
binary tree with a symbol at every leaf. This is done in steps, where at each step two
symbols with the smallest probabilities are selected, added to the top of the partial tree,
deleted from the list, and replaced with an auxiliary symbol representing the two original
symbols. When the list is reduced to just one auxiliary symbol (representing the entire
alphabet), the tree is complete. The tree is then traversed to determine the codewords
of the symbols.
This process is best illustrated by an example. Given ﬁve symbols with probabilities
as shown in Figure 2.1a, they are paired in the following order:
1. a4 is combined with a5 and both are replaced by the combined symbol a45 , whose
probability is 0.2.
2. There are now four symbols left, a1 , with probability 0.4, and a2 , a3 , and a45 , with
probabilities 0.2 each. We arbitrarily select a3 and a45 as the two symbols with smallest
probabilities, combine them, and replace them with the auxiliary symbol a345 , whose
probability is 0.4.
3. Three symbols are now left, a1 , a2 , and a345 , with probabilities 0.4, 0.2, and 0.4,
respectively. We arbitrarily select a2 and a345 , combine them, and replace them with
the auxiliary symbol a2345 , whose probability is 0.6.
4. Finally, we combine the two remaining symbols, a1 and a2345 , and replace them with
a12345 with probability 1.
The tree is now complete. It is shown in Figure 2.1a “lying on its side” with its
root on the right and its ﬁve leaves on the left. To assign the codewords, we arbitrarily
assign a bit of 1 to the top edge, and a bit of 0 to the bottom edge, of every pair of
edges. This results in the codewords 0, 10, 111, 1101, and 1100. The assignments of bits
to the edges is arbitrary.
The average size of this code is 0.4 × 1 + 0.2 × 2 + 0.2 × 3 + 0.1 × 4 + 0.1 × 4 = 2.2
bits/symbol, but even more importantly, the Huﬀman code is not unique. Some of the
steps above were chosen arbitrarily, because there were more than two symbols with
smallest probabilities. Figure 2.1b shows how the same ﬁve symbols can be combined
diﬀerently to obtain a diﬀerent Huﬀman code (11, 01, 00, 101, and 100). The average
size of this code is 0.4 × 2 + 0.2 × 2 + 0.2 × 2 + 0.1 × 3 + 0.1 × 3 = 2.2 bits/symbol, the
same as the previous code.
Exercise 2.1: Given the eight symbols A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H with probabilities
1/30, 1/30, 1/30, 2/30, 3/30, 5/30, 5/30, and 12/30, draw three diﬀerent Huﬀman trees
with heights 5 and 6 for these symbols and compute the average code size for each tree.
Exercise 2.2: Figure Ans.1d shows another Huﬀman tree, with height 4, for the eight
symbols introduced in Exercise 2.1. Explain why this tree is wrong.
It turns out that the arbitrary decisions made in constructing the Huﬀman tree
aﬀect the individual codes but not the average size of the code. Still, we have to answer
the obvious question, which of the diﬀerent Huﬀman codes for a given set of symbols
is best? The answer, while not obvious, is simple: The best code is the one with the
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

64 2. Huﬀman Coding
0 1.0
a1 0.4 a1 0.4 a145 0.6
a12345 1
1 1
a2345 1
1 0
a2 0.2 0
0.6 a2 0.2 0
1.0
a23 0.4
1
a3 0.2 a3 0.2 0
a345 0.4
1 1
a4 0.1 0
a4 0.1
a45 0.2
a45 0.2
a5 0.1 0
a5 0.1 0
(a) (b)
Figure 2.1: Huﬀman Codes.
smallest variance. The variance of a code measures how much the sizes of the individual
codewords deviate from the average size. The variance of the code of Figure 2.1a is
0.4(1 − 2.2)2 + 0.2(2 − 2.2)2 + 0.2(3 − 2.2)2 + 0.1(4 − 2.2)2 + 0.1(4 − 2.2)2 = 1.36,
while the variance of code 2.1b is
0.4(2 − 2.2)2 + 0.2(2 − 2.2)2 + 0.2(2 − 2.2)2 + 0.1(3 − 2.2)2 + 0.1(3 − 2.2)2 = 0.16.
Code 2.1b is therefore preferable (see below). A careful look at the two trees shows how
to select the one we want. In the tree of Figure 2.1a, symbol a45 is combined with a3 ,
whereas in the tree of 2.1b a45 is combined with a1 . The rule is: When there are more
than two smallest-probability nodes, select the ones that are lowest and highest in the
tree and combine them. This will combine symbols of low probability with symbols of
high probability, thereby reducing the total variance of the code.
If the encoder simply writes the compressed data on a ﬁle, the variance of the code
makes no diﬀerence. A small-variance Huﬀman code is preferable only in cases where
the encoder transmits the compressed data, as it is being generated, over a network. In
such a case, a code with large variance causes the encoder to generate bits at a rate that
varies all the time. Since the bits have to be transmitted at a constant rate, the encoder
has to use a buﬀer. Bits of the compressed data are entered into the buﬀer as they are
being generated and are moved out of it at a constant rate, to be transmitted. It is easy
to see intuitively that a Huﬀman code with zero variance will enter bits into the buﬀer
at a constant rate, so only a short buﬀer will be needed. The larger the code variance,
the more variable is the rate at which bits enter the buﬀer, requiring the encoder to use
a larger buﬀer.
The following claim is sometimes found in the literature:
It can be shown that the size of the Huﬀman code of a symbol
ai with probability Pi is always less than or equal to − log2 Pi .
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.1 Huﬀman Encoding 65
Even though it is correct in many cases, this claim is not true in general. It seems
to be a wrong corollary drawn by some authors from the Kraft–McMillan inequality,
Equation (1.4). The author is indebted to Guy Blelloch for pointing this out and also
for the example of Table 2.2.
Pi Code − log2 Pi − log2 Pi
.01 000 6.644 7
*.30 001 1.737 2
.34 01 1.556 2
.35 1 1.515 2
Table 2.2: A Huﬀman Code Example.
Exercise 2.3: Find an example where the size of the Huﬀman code of a symbol ai is
greater than − log2 Pi .
Exercise 2.4: It seems that the size of a code must also depend on the number n of
symbols (the size of the alphabet). A small alphabet requires just a few codes, so they
can all be short; a large alphabet requires many codes, so some must be long. This being
so, how can we say that the size of the code of ai depends just on the probability Pi ?
Figure 2.3 shows a Huﬀman code for the 26 letters.
As a self-exercise, the reader may calculate the average size, entropy, and variance
of this code.
Exercise 2.5: Discuss the Huﬀman codes for equal probabilities.
Exercise 2.5 shows that symbols with equal probabilities don’t compress under the
Huﬀman method. This is understandable, since strings of such symbols normally make
random text, and random text does not compress. There may be special cases where
strings of symbols with equal probabilities are not random and can be compressed. A
good example is the string a1 a1 . . . a1 a2 a2 . . . a2 a3 a3 . . . in which each symbol appears
in a long run. This string can be compressed with RLE but not with Huﬀman codes.
Notice that the Huﬀman method cannot be applied to a two-symbol alphabet. In
such an alphabet, one symbol can be assigned the code 0 and the other code 1. The
Huﬀman method cannot assign to any symbol a code shorter than one bit, so it cannot
improve on this simple code. If the original data (the source) consists of individual
bits, such as in the case of a bi-level (monochromatic) image, it is possible to combine
several bits (perhaps four or eight) into a new symbol and pretend that the alphabet
consists of these (16 or 256) symbols. The problem with this approach is that the original
binary data may have certain statistical correlations between the bits, and some of these
correlations would be lost when the bits are combined into symbols. When a typical
bi-level image (a painting or a diagram) is digitized by scan lines, a pixel is more likely to
be followed by an identical pixel than by the opposite one. We therefore have a ﬁle that
can start with either a 0 or a 1 (each has 0.5 probability of being the ﬁrst bit). A zero is
more likely to be followed by another 0 and a 1 by another 1. Figure 2.4 is a ﬁnite-state
machine illustrating this situation. If these bits are combined into, say, groups of eight,
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

66 2. Huﬀman Coding
000 E .1300 0
0010 T .0900 .30 0
0011 A .0800 1
0100 O .0800 .580
0101 N .0700 1
0110 R .0650 .28
0111 I .0650
10000 H .0600 0
10001 S .0600
1.0
10010 D .0400 .195 0
10011 L .0350 1
10100 C .0300 .305 0
10101 U .0300 1
10110 M .0300 .11
10111 F .0200
11000 P .0200
11001 Y .0200 .420
11010 B .0150 .070 0
11011 W .0150 1
11100 G .0150 .115
11101 V .0100 .025 1
111100 J .0050
111101 K .0050 .045
.010
111110 X .0050 .020
1111110 Q .0025 .010
1111111 Z .0025 .005
Figure 2.3: A Huﬀman Code for the 26-Letter Alphabet.
the bits inside a group will still be correlated, but the groups themselves will not be
correlated by the original pixel probabilities. If the input data contains, e.g., the two
adjacent groups 00011100 and 00001110, they will be encoded independently, ignoring
the correlation between the last 0 of the ﬁrst group and the ﬁrst 0 of the next group.
Selecting larger groups improves this situation but increases the number of groups, which
implies more storage for the code table and longer time to calculate the table.
Exercise 2.6: How does the number of groups increase when the group size increases
from s bits to s + n bits?
A more complex approach to image compression by Huﬀman coding is to create
several complete sets of Huﬀman codes. If the group size is, e.g., eight bits, then several
sets of 256 codes are generated. When a symbol S is to be encoded, one of the sets is
selected, and S is encoded using its code in that set. The choice of set depends on the
symbol preceding S.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.2 Huﬀman Decoding 67
Start s
0,50% 1,50%
1,33%
0 1
0,67% 0,40% 1,60%
Figure 2.4: A Finite-State Machine.
Exercise 2.7: Imagine an image with 8-bit pixels where half the pixels have values 127
and the other half have values 128. Analyze the performance of RLE on the individual
bitplanes of such an image, and compare it with what can be achieved with Huﬀman
coding.
Which two integers come next in the inﬁnite sequence 38, 24, 62, 12, 74, . . . ?
2.2 Huﬀman Decoding
Before starting the compression of a data ﬁle, the compressor (encoder) has to determine
the codes. It does that based on the probabilities (or frequencies of occurrence) of the
symbols. The probabilities or frequencies have to be written, as side information, on
the output, so that any Huﬀman decompressor (decoder) will be able to decompress
the data. This is easy, because the frequencies are integers and the probabilities can
be written as scaled integers. It normally adds just a few hundred bytes to the output.
It is also possible to write the variable-length codes themselves on the output, but this
may be awkward, because the codes have diﬀerent sizes. It is also possible to write the
Huﬀman tree on the output, but this may require more space than just the frequencies.
In any case, the decoder must know what is at the start of the compressed ﬁle,
read it, and construct the Huﬀman tree for the alphabet. Only then can it read and
decode the rest of its input. The algorithm for decoding is simple. Start at the root
and read the ﬁrst bit oﬀ the input (the compressed ﬁle). If it is zero, follow the bottom
edge of the tree; if it is one, follow the top edge. Read the next bit and move another
edge toward the leaves of the tree. When the decoder arrives at a leaf, it ﬁnds there the
original, uncompressed symbol (normally its ASCII code), and that code is emitted by
the decoder. The process starts again at the root with the next bit.
This process is illustrated for the ﬁve-symbol alphabet of Figure 2.5. The four-
symbol input string a4 a2 a5 a1 is encoded into 1001100111. The decoder starts at the
root, reads the ﬁrst bit 1, and goes up. The second bit 0 sends it down, as does the
third bit. This brings the decoder to leaf a4 , which it emits. It again returns to the
root, reads 110, moves up, up, and down, to reach leaf a2 , and so on.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

68 2. Huﬀman Coding
1
2 1
3 0
1
4
0
5
Figure 2.5: Huﬀman Codes for Equal Probabilities.
2.2.1 Fast Huﬀman Decoding
Decoding a Huﬀman-compressed ﬁle by sliding down the code tree for each symbol is
conceptually simple, but slow. The compressed ﬁle has to be read bit by bit and the
decoder has to advance a node in the code tree for each bit. The method of this section,
originally conceived by [Choueka et al. 85] but later reinvented by others, uses preset
partial-decoding tables. These tables depend on the particular Huﬀman code used, but
not on the data to be decoded. The compressed ﬁle is read in chunks of k bits each
(where k is normally 8 or 16 but can have other values) and the current chunk is used
as a pointer to a table. The table entry that is selected in this way can decode several
symbols and it also points the decoder to the table to be used for the next chunk.
As an example, consider the Huﬀman code of Figure 2.1a, where the ﬁve codewords
are 0, 10, 111, 1101, and 1100. The string of symbols a1 a1 a2 a4 a3 a1 a5 . . . is compressed
by this code to the string 0|0|10|1101|111|0|1100 . . .. We select k = 3 and read this string
in 3-bit chunks 001|011|011|110|110|0 . . .. Examining the ﬁrst chunk, it is easy to see
that it should be decoded into a1 a1 followed by the single bit 1 which is the preﬁx of
another codeword. The ﬁrst chunk is 001 = 110 , so we set entry 1 of the ﬁrst table (table
0) to the pair (a1 a1 , 1). When chunk 001 is used as a pointer to table 0, it points to entry
1, which immediately provides the decoder with the two decoded symbols a1 a1 and also
directs it to use table 1 for the next chunk. Table 1 is used when a partially-decoded
chunk ends with the single-bit preﬁx 1. The next chunk is 011 = 310 , so entry 3 of
table 1 corresponds to the encoded bits 1|011. Again, it is easy to see that these should
be decoded to a2 and there is the preﬁx 11 left over. Thus, entry 3 of table 1 should be
(a2 , 2). It provides the decoder with the single symbol a2 and also directs it to use table 2
next (the table that corresponds to preﬁx 11). The next chunk is again 011 = 310 , so
entry 3 of table 2 corresponds to the encoded bits 11|011. It is again obvious that these
should be decoded to a4 with a preﬁx of 1 left over. This process continues until the
end of the encoded input. Figure 2.6 is the simple decoding algorithm in pseudocode.
Table 2.7 lists the four tables required to decode this code. It is easy to see that
they correspond to the preﬁxes Λ (null), 1, 11, and 110. A quick glance at Figure 2.1a
shows that these correspond to the root and the four interior nodes of the Huﬀman code
tree. Thus, each partial-decoding table corresponds to one of the four preﬁxes of this
code. The number m of partial-decoding tables therefore equals the number of interior
nodes (plus the root) which is one less than the number N of symbols of the alphabet.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.2 Huﬀman Decoding 69
i←0; output←null;
repeat
j←input next chunk;
(s,i)←Tablei [j];
append s to output;
until end-of-input
Figure 2.6: Fast Huﬀman Decoding.
T0 = Λ T1 = 1 T2 = 11 T3 = 110
000 a1 a1 a1 0 1|000 a2 a1 a1 0 11|000 a5 a1 0 110|000 a5 a1 a1 0
001 a1 a1 1 1|001 a2 a1 1 11|001 a5 1 110|001 a5 a1 1
010 a1 a2 0 1|010 a2 a2 0 11|010 a4 a1 0 110|010 a5 a2 0
011 a1 2 1|011 a2 2 11|011 a4 1 110|011 a5 2
100 a2 a1 0 1|100 a5 0 11|100 a3 a1 a1 0 110|100 a4 a1 a1 0
101 a2 1 1|101 a4 0 11|101 a3 a1 1 110|101 a4 a1 1
110 − 3 1|110 a3 a1 0 11|110 a3 a2 0 110|110 a4 a2 0
111 a3 0 1|111 a3 1 11|111 a3 2 110|111 a4 2
Table 2.7: Partial-Decoding Tables for a Huﬀman Code.
Notice that some chunks (such as entry 110 of table 0) simply send the decoder
to another table and do not provide any decoded symbols. Also, there is a trade-oﬀ
between chunk size (and thus table size) and decoding speed. Large chunks speed up
decoding, but require large tables. A large alphabet (such as the 128 ASCII characters
or the 256 8-bit bytes) also requires a large set of tables. The problem with large tables
is that the decoder has to set up the tables after it has read the Huﬀman codes from the
compressed stream and before decoding can start, and this process may preempt any
gains in decoding speed provided by the tables.
To set up the ﬁrst table (table 0, which corresponds to the null preﬁx Λ), the
decoder generates the 2k bit patterns 0 through 2k − 1 (the ﬁrst column of Table 2.7)
and employs the decoding method of Section 2.2 to decode each pattern. This yields
the second column of Table 2.7. Any remainders left are preﬁxes and are converted
by the decoder to table numbers. They become the third column of the table. If no
remainder is left, the third column is set to 0 (use table 0 for the next chunk). Each of
the other partial-decoding tables is set in a similar way. Once the decoder decides that
table 1 corresponds to preﬁx p, it generates the 2k patterns p|00 . . . 0 through p|11 . . . 1
that become the ﬁrst column of that table. It then decodes that column to generate the
remaining two columns.
This method was conceived in 1985, when storage costs were considerably higher
than today (early 2007). This prompted the developers of the method to ﬁnd ways to
cut down the number of partial-decoding tables, but these techniques are less important
today and are not described here.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

70 2. Huﬀman Coding
2.2.2 Average Code Size
Figure 2.8a shows a set of ﬁve symbols with their probabilities and a typical Huﬀman
tree. Symbol A appears 55% of the time and is assigned a 1-bit code, so it contributes
0.55 · 1 bits to the average code size. Symbol E appears only 2% of the time and is
assigned a 4-bit Huﬀman code, so it contributes 0.02 · 4 = 0.08 bits to the code size. The
average code size is therefore easily computed as
0.55 · 1 + 0.25 · 2 + 0.15 · 3 + 0.03 · 4 + 0.02 · 4 = 1.7 bits per symbol.
Surprisingly, the same result is obtained by adding the values of the four internal nodes
of the Huﬀman code tree 0.05 + 0.2 + 0.45 + 1 = 1.7. This provides a way to calculate
the average code size of a set of Huﬀman codes without any multiplications. Simply add
the values of all the internal nodes of the tree. Table 2.9 illustrates why this works.
A 0.55
1
B 0.25
0.45
C 0.15
0.2
D 0.03
0.05
E 0.02
(a)
d
ad−2
0.03
a1 1
0.05
0.02
(b)
Figure 2.8: Huﬀman Code Trees.
(Internal nodes are shown in italics in this table.) The left column consists of the values
of all the internal nodes. The right columns show how each internal node is the sum of
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.2 Huﬀman Decoding 71
0 .05 = = 0.02 + 0.03 + · · ·
a1 = 0 .05 + . . .= 0.02 + 0.03 + · · ·
a2 = a1 + . . .= 0.02 + 0.03 + · · ·
.05 = .02+ .03 .
.20 = .05 + .15 = .02+ .03+ .15 .
. =
.45 = .20 + .25 = .02+ .03+ .15+ .25 ad−2 = ad−3 + . . .= 0.02 + 0.03 + · · ·
1 .0 = .45 + .55 = .02+ .03+ .15+ .25+ .55 1 .0 = ad−2 + . . .= 0.02 + 0.03 + · · ·
Table 2.9: Composition of Nodes. Table 2.10: Composition of Nodes.
some of the leaf nodes. Summing the values in the left column yields 1.7, and summing
the other columns shows that this 1.7 is the sum of the four values 0.02, the four values
0.03, the three values 0.15, the two values 0.25, and the single value 0.55.
This argument can be extended to the general case. It is easy to show that, in a
Huﬀman-like tree (a tree where each node is the sum of its children), the weighted sum
of the leaves, where the weights are the distances of the leaves from the root, equals
the sum of the internal nodes. (This property has been communicated to the author by
J. Motil.)
Figure 2.8b shows such a tree, where we assume that the two leaves 0.02 and 0.03
have d-bit Huﬀman codes. Inside the tree, these leaves become the children of internal
node 0.05, which, in turn, is connected to the root by means of the d − 2 internal nodes
a1 through ad−2 . Table 2.10 has d rows and shows that the two values 0.02 and 0.03
are included in the various internal nodes exactly d times. Adding the values of all the
internal nodes produces a sum that includes the contributions 0.02 · d + 0.03 · d from
the two leaves. Since these leaves are arbitrary, it is clear that this sum includes similar
contributions from all the other leaves, so this sum is the average code size. Since this
sum also equals the sum of the left column, which is the sum of the internal nodes, it is
clear that the sum of the internal nodes equals the average code size.
Notice that this proof does not assume that the tree is binary. The property illus-
trated here exists for any tree where a node contains the sum of its children.
2.2.3 Number of Codes
Since the Huﬀman code is not unique, the natural question is: How many diﬀerent codes
are there? Figure 2.11a shows a Huﬀman code tree for six symbols, from which we can
answer this question in two diﬀerent ways as follows:
Answer 1. The tree of 2.11a has ﬁve interior nodes, and in general, a Huﬀman code
tree for n symbols has n − 1 interior nodes. Each interior node has two edges coming
out of it, labeled 0 and 1. Swapping the two labels produces a diﬀerent Huﬀman code
tree, so the total number of diﬀerent Huﬀman code trees is 2n−1 (in our example, 25 or
32). The tree of Figure 2.11b, for example, shows the result of swapping the labels of
the two edges of the root. Table 2.12a,b lists the codes generated by the two trees.
Answer 2. The six codes of Table 2.12a can be divided into the four classes 00x,
10y, 01, and 11, where x and y are 1-bit each. It is possible to create diﬀerent Huﬀman
codes by changing the ﬁrst two bits of each class. Since there are four classes, this is
the same as creating all the permutations of four objects, something that can be done
in 4! = 24 ways. In each of the 24 permutations it is also possible to change the values
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

72 2. Huﬀman Coding
0 0
1 .11 0 1 .11 0
1 1
2 .12 2 .12
0 0 0 1
3 .13 0 3 .13 0 000 100 000
1 1 001 101 001
4 .14 4 .14
1 1 100 000 010
5 .24 1 5 .24 0 101 001 011
1 1 01 11 10
6 .26 6 .26
11 01 11
(a) (b) (a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.11: Two Huﬀman Code Trees. Table 2.12.
of x and y in four diﬀerent ways (since they are bits) so the total number of diﬀerent
Huﬀman codes in our six-symbol example is 24 × 4 = 96.
The two answers are diﬀerent because they count diﬀerent things. Answer 1 counts
the number of diﬀerent Huﬀman code trees, while answer 2 counts the number of diﬀerent
Huﬀman codes. It turns out that our example can generate 32 diﬀerent code trees but
only 94 diﬀerent codes instead of 96. This shows that there are Huﬀman codes that
cannot be generated by the Huﬀman method! Table 2.12c shows such an example. A
look at the trees of Figure 2.11 should convince the reader that the codes of symbols 5
and 6 must start with diﬀerent bits, but in the code of Table 2.12c they both start with
1. This code is therefore impossible to generate by any relabeling of the nodes of the
trees of Figure 2.11.
2.2.4 Ternary Huﬀman Codes
The Huﬀman code is not unique. Moreover, it does not have to be binary! The Huﬀman
method can easily be applied to codes based on other number systems. Figure 2.13a
shows a Huﬀman code tree for ﬁve symbols with probabilities 0.15, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, and
0.25. The average code size is
2×0.25 + 3×0.15 + 3×0.15 + 2×0.20 + 2×0.25 = 2.3 bits/symbol.
Figure 2.13b shows a ternary Huﬀman code tree for the same ﬁve symbols. The tree
is constructed by selecting, at each step, three symbols with the smallest probabilities
and merging them into one parent symbol, with the combined probability. The average
code size of this tree is
2×0.15 + 2×0.15 + 2×0.20 + 1×0.25 + 1×0.25 = 1.5 trits/symbol.
Notice that the ternary codes use the digits 0, 1, and 2.
Exercise 2.8: Given seven symbols with probabilities 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.04, 0.12, 0.26,
and 0.49, construct binary and ternary Huﬀman code trees for them and calculate the
average code size in each case.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.2 Huﬀman Decoding 73
1.0
1.0
.55
.50 .25 .25
.25 .30 .45
.15 .15 .20 .25 .15 .15 .20
(a) (b)
1.0
.49 .51
.26 .25 1.0
.13 .12 .26 .25 .49
.05 .08 .09 .04 .12
.02 .03 .04 .04 .02 .03 .04
(c) (d)
Figure 2.13: Binary and Ternary Huﬀman Code Trees.
2.2.5 Height of a Huﬀman Tree
The height of the code tree generated by the Huﬀman algorithm may sometimes be
important because the height is also the length of the longest code in the tree. The
Deﬂate method (Section 3.3), for example, limits the lengths of certain Huﬀman codes
to just three bits.
It is easy to see that the shortest Huﬀman tree is created when the symbols have
equal probabilities. If the symbols are denoted by A, B, C, and so on, then the algorithm
combines pairs of symbols, such A and B, C and D, in the lowest level, and the rest of the
tree consists of interior nodes as shown in Figure 2.14a. The tree is balanced or close
to balanced and its height is log2 n . In the special case where the number of symbols
n is a power of 2, the height is exactly log2 n. In order to generate the tallest tree, we
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

74 2. Huﬀman Coding
need to assign probabilities to the symbols such that each step in the Huﬀman method
will increase the height of the tree by 1. Recall that each step in the Huﬀman algorithm
combines two symbols. Thus, the tallest tree is obtained when the ﬁrst step combines
two of the n symbols and each subsequent step combines the result of its predecessor
with one of the remaining symbols (Figure 2.14b). The height of the complete tree is
therefore n − 1, and it is referred to as a lopsided or unbalanced tree.
It is easy to see what symbol probabilities result in such a tree. Denote the two
smallest probabilities by a and b. They are combined in the ﬁrst step to form a node
whose probability is a + b. The second step will combine this node with an original
symbol if one of the symbols has probability a + b (or smaller) and all the remaining
symbols have greater probabilities. Thus, after the second step, the root of the tree
has probability a + b + (a + b) and the third step will combine this root with one of
the remaining symbols if its probability is a + b + (a + b) and the probabilities of the
remaining n − 4 symbols are greater. It does not take much to realize that the symbols
have to have probabilities p1 = a, p2 = b, p3 = a + b = p1 + p2 , p4 = b + (a + b) = p2 + p3 ,
p5 = (a + b) + (a + 2b) = p3 + p4 , p6 = (a + 2b) + (2a + 3b) = p4 + p5 , and so on
(Figure 2.14c). These probabilities form a Fibonacci sequence whose ﬁrst two elements
are a and b. As an example, we select a = 5 and b = 2 and generate the 5-number
Fibonacci sequence 5, 2, 7, 9, and 16. These ﬁve numbers add up to 39, so dividing
them by 39 produces the ﬁve probabilities 5/39, 2/39, 7/39, 9/39, and 15/39. The
Huﬀman tree generated by them has a maximal height (which is 4).
5a+8b
0 3a+5b
10 2a+3b
110 a+2b
1110 a+b
000 001 010 011 100 101 110 111 11110 11111 a b
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.14: Shortest and Tallest Huﬀman Trees.
In principle, symbols in a set can have any probabilities, but in practice, the proba-
bilities of symbols in an input ﬁle are computed by counting the number of occurrences
of each symbol. Imagine a text ﬁle where only the nine symbols A through I appear.
In order for such a ﬁle to produce the tallest Huﬀman tree, where the codes will have
lengths from 1 to 8 bits, the frequencies of occurrence of the nine symbols have to form a
Fibonacci sequence of probabilities. This happens when the frequencies of the symbols
are 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and 34 (or integer multiples of these). The sum of these
frequencies is 88, so our ﬁle has to be at least that long in order for a symbol to have
8-bit Huﬀman codes. Similarly, if we want to limit the sizes of the Huﬀman codes of a
set of n symbols to 16 bits, we need to count frequencies of at least 4,180 symbols. To
limit the code sizes to 32 bits, the minimum data size is 9,227,464 symbols.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.2 Huﬀman Decoding 75
If a set of symbols happens to have the Fibonacci probabilities and therefore results
in a maximal-height Huﬀman tree with codes that are too long, the tree can be reshaped
(and the maximum code length shortened) by slightly modifying the symbol probabil-
ities, so they are not much diﬀerent from the original, but do not form a Fibonacci
sequence.
2.2.6 Canonical Huﬀman Codes
The code of Table 2.12c has a simple interpretation. It assigns the ﬁrst four symbols the
3-bit codes 0, 1, 2, and 3, and the last two symbols the 2-bit codes 2 and 3. This is an
example of a canonical Huﬀman code. The word “canonical” means that this particular
code has been selected from among the several (or even many) possible Huﬀman codes
because its properties make it easy and fast to use.
Canonical (adjective): Conforming to orthodox or well-established rules or patterns,
as of procedure.
Table 2.15 shows a slightly bigger example of a canonical Huﬀman code. Imagine
a set of 16 symbols (whose probabilities are irrelevant and are not shown) such that
four symbols are assigned 3-bit codes, ﬁve symbols are assigned 5-bit codes, and the
remaining seven symbols are assigned 6-bit codes. Table 2.15a shows a set of possible
Huﬀman codes, while Table 2.15b shows a set of canonical Huﬀman codes. It is easy to
see that the seven 6-bit canonical codes are simply the 6-bit integers 0 through 6. The
ﬁve codes are the 5-bit integers 4 through 8, and the four codes are the 3-bit integers 3
through 6. We ﬁrst show how these codes are generated and then how they are used.
1: 000 011 9: 10100 01000
2: 001 100 10: 101010 000000
3: 010 101 11: 101011 000001
4: 011 110 12: 101100 000010
5: 10000 00100 13: 101101 000011
6: 10001 00101 14: 101110 000100
7: 10010 00110 15: 101111 000101 length: 1 2 3 4 5 6
8: 10011 00111 16: 110000 000110 numl: 0 0 4 0 5 7
(a) (b) (a) (b) ﬁrst: 2 4 3 5 4 0
Table 2.15. Table 2.16.
The top row (length) of Table 2.16 lists the possible code lengths, from 1 to 6 bits.
The second row (numl) lists the number of codes of each length, and the bottom row
(ﬁrst) lists the ﬁrst code in each group. This is why the three groups of codes start with
values 3, 4, and 0. To obtain the top two rows we need to compute the lengths of all
the Huﬀman codes for the given alphabet (see below). The third row is computed by
setting “first[6]:=0;” and iterating
for l:=5 downto 1 do first[l]:= (first[l+1]+numl[l+1])/2 ;
This guarantees that all the 3-bit preﬁxes of codes longer than three bits will be less
than first[3] (which is 3), all the 5-bit preﬁxes of codes longer than ﬁve bits will be
less than first[5] (which is 4), and so on.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

76 2. Huﬀman Coding
Now for the use of these unusual codes. Canonical Huﬀman codes are useful in
cases where the alphabet is large and where fast decoding is mandatory. Because of the
way the codes are constructed, it is easy for the decoder to identify the length of a code
by reading and examining input bits one by one. Once the length is known, the symbol
can be found in one step. The pseudocode listed here shows the rules for decoding:
l:=1; input v;
while v

2.3 Adaptive Huﬀman Coding 77
was originally developed by [Faller 73] and [Gallager 78] with substantial improvements
by [Knuth 85].
The main idea is for the compressor and the decompressor to start with an empty
Huﬀman tree and to modify it as symbols are being read and processed (in the case of the
compressor, the word “processed” means compressed; in the case of the decompressor, it
means decompressed). The compressor and decompressor should modify the tree in the
same way, so at any point in the process they should use the same codes, although those
codes may change from step to step. We say that the compressor and decompressor
are synchronized or that they work in lockstep (although they don’t necessarily work
together; compression and decompression normally take place at diﬀerent times). The
term mirroring is perhaps a better choice. The decoder mirrors the operations of the
encoder.
Initially, the compressor starts with an empty Huﬀman tree. No symbols have been
assigned codes yet. The ﬁrst symbol being input is simply written on the output in its
uncompressed form. The symbol is then added to the tree and a code assigned to it.
The next time this symbol is encountered, its current code is written on the output, and
its frequency incremented by 1. Since this modiﬁes the tree, it (the tree) is examined to
see whether it is still a Huﬀman tree (best codes). If not, it is rearranged, an operation
that results in modiﬁed codes.
The decompressor mirrors the same steps. When it reads the uncompressed form
of a symbol, it adds it to the tree and assigns it a code. When it reads a compressed
(variable-length) code, it scans the current tree to determine what symbol the code
belongs to, and it increments the symbol’s frequency and rearranges the tree in the
same way as the compressor.
It is immediately clear that the decompressor needs to know whether the item
it has just input is an uncompressed symbol (normally, an 8-bit ASCII code, but see
Section 2.3.1) or a variable-length code. To remove any ambiguity, each uncompressed
symbol is preceded by a special, variable-size escape code. When the decompressor reads
this code, it knows that the next eight bits are the ASCII code of a symbol that appears
in the compressed ﬁle for the ﬁrst time.
Escape is not his plan. I must face him. Alone.
—David Prowse as Lord Darth Vader in Star Wars (1977)
The trouble is that the escape code should not be any of the variable-length codes
used for the symbols. These codes, however, are being modiﬁed every time the tree is
rearranged, which is why the escape code should also be modiﬁed. A natural way to do
this is to add an empty leaf to the tree, a leaf with a zero frequency of occurrence, that’s
always assigned to the 0-branch of the tree. Since the leaf is in the tree, it is assigned
a variable-length code. This code is the escape code preceding every uncompressed
symbol. As the tree is being rearranged, the position of the empty leaf—and thus its
code—change, but this escape code is always used to identify uncompressed symbols in
the compressed ﬁle. Figure 2.17 shows how the escape code moves and changes as the
tree grows.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

78 2. Huﬀman Coding
1 0
1 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0
000
Figure 2.17: The Escape Code.
2.3.1 Uncompressed Codes
If the symbols being compressed are ASCII characters, they may simply be assigned
their ASCII codes as uncompressed codes. In the general case where there may be any
symbols, uncompressed codes of two diﬀerent sizes can be assigned by a simple method.
Here is an example for the case n = 24. The ﬁrst 16 symbols can be assigned the numbers
0 through 15 as their codes. These numbers require only 4 bits, but we encode them in 5
bits. Symbols 17 through 24 can be assigned the numbers 17−16−1 = 0, 18−16−1 = 1
through 24 − 16 − 1 = 7 as 4-bit numbers. We end up with the sixteen 5-bit codes 00000,
00001, . . . , 01111, followed by the eight 4-bit codes 0000, 0001, . . . , 0111.
In general, we assume an alphabet that consists of the n symbols a1 , a2 , . . . , an . We
select integers m and r such that 2m ≤ n < 2m+1 and r = n − 2m . The ﬁrst 2m symbols
are encoded as the (m + 1)-bit numbers 0 through 2m − 1. The remaining symbols are
encoded as m-bit numbers such that the code of ak is k − 2m − 1. This code is also
called a phased-in binary code (also a minimal binary code).
2.3.2 Modifying the Tree
The chief principle for modifying the tree is to check it each time a symbol is input. If
the tree is no longer a Huﬀman tree, it should be rearranged to become one. A glance
at Figure 2.18a shows what it means for a binary tree to be a Huﬀman tree. The tree in
the ﬁgure contains ﬁve symbols: A, B, C, D, and E. It is shown with the symbols and
their frequencies (in parentheses) after 16 symbols have been input and processed. The
property that makes it a Huﬀman tree is that if we scan it level by level, scanning each
level from left to right, and going from the bottom (the leaves) to the top (the root),
the frequencies will be in sorted, nondescending order. Thus, the bottom-left node (A)
has the lowest frequency, and the top-right node (the root) has the highest frequency.
This is called the sibling property.
Exercise 2.9: Why is this the criterion for a tree to be a Huﬀman tree?
Here is a summary of the operations needed to update the tree. The loop starts
at the current node (the one corresponding to the symbol just input). This node is a
leaf that we denote by X, with frequency of occurrence F . Each iteration of the loop
involves three steps as follows:
1. Compare X to its successors in the tree (from left to right and bottom to top). If
the immediate successor has frequency F + 1 or greater, the nodes are still in sorted
order and there is no need to change anything. Otherwise, some successors of X have
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

2.3 Adaptive Huﬀman Coding 79
identical frequencies of F or smaller. In this case, X should be swapped with the last
node in this group (except that X should not be swapped with its parent).
2. Increment the frequency of X from F to F + 1. Increment the frequencies of all its
parents.
3. If X is the root, the loop stops; otherwise, it repeats with the parent of node X.
Figure 2.18b shows the tree after the frequency of node A has been incremented
from 1 to 2. It is easy to follow the three rules above to see how incrementing the
frequency of A results in incrementing the frequencies of all its parents. No swaps are
needed in this simple case because the frequency of A hasn’t exceeded the frequency of
its immediate successor B. Figure 2.18c shows what happens when A’s frequency has
been incremented again, from 2 to 3. The three nodes following A, namely, B, C, and
D, have frequencies of 2, so A is swapped with the last of them, D. The frequencies
of the new parents of A are then incremented, and each is compared with its successor,
but no more swaps are needed.
Figure 2.18d shows the tree after the frequency of A has been incremented to 4.
Once we decide that A is the current node, its frequency (which is still 3) is compared to
that of its successor (4), and the decision is not to swap. A’s frequency is incremented,
followed by incrementing the frequencies of its parents.
In Figure 2.18e, A is again the current node. Its frequency (4) equals that of its
successor, so they should be swapped. This is shown in Figure 2.18f, where A’s frequency
is 5. The next loop iteration examines the parent of A, with frequency 10. It should
be swapped with its successor E (with frequency 9), which leads to the ﬁnal tree of
Figure 2.18g.
2.3.3 Counter Overﬂow
The frequency counts are accumulated in the Huﬀman tree in ﬁxed-size ﬁelds, and
such ﬁelds may overﬂow. A 16-bit unsigned ﬁeld can accommodate counts of up to
216 − 1 = 65,535. A simple solution to the counter overﬂow problem is to watch the
count ﬁeld of the root each time it is incremented, and when it reaches its maximum
value, to rescale all the frequency counts by dividing them by 2 (integer division). In
practice, this is done by dividing the count ﬁelds of the leaves, then updating the counts
of the interior nodes. Each interior node gets the sum of the counts of its children. The
problem is that the counts are integers, and integer division reduces precision. This may
change a Huﬀman tree to one that does not satisfy the sibling property.
A simple example is shown in Figure 2.18h. After the counts of the leaves are halved,
the three interior nodes are updated as shown in Figure 2.18i. The latter tree, however,
is no longer a Huﬀman tree, since the counts are no longer in sorted order. The solution
is to rebuild the tree each time the counts are rescaled, which does not happen very
often. A Huﬀman data compression program intended for general use should therefore
have large count ﬁelds that would not overﬂow very often. A 4-byte count ﬁeld overﬂows
at 232 − 1 ≈ 4.3 × 109 .
It should be noted that after rescaling the counts, the new symbols being read and
compressed have more eﬀect on the counts than the old symbols (those counted before
the rescaling). This turns out to be fortuitous since it is known from experience that
the probability of appearance of a symbol depends more on the symbols immediately
preceding it than on symbols that appeared in the distant past.
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.